Ash
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I am afraid I don’t rate this.
What would like to see being emphasised as an expectation of Drs right now with our current state of knowledge and before any money is spent or decisions made about avenues of investigation, is as follows;
I would want a Dr able to make the straight forward assessment that the symptoms of ME, coming as they so often do post infectiously, are in all reasonable likelihood of exactly the mundane biological origin that they appear to be.
Commonly experienced symptoms of infection that last an uncommonly long time. For some reason or other.
I would want this Dr to understand that as reason for the underlying cause of M.E biological processes are perfectly sufficient an explanation.
That there is no need for this dr to imagine up some psychological creations to explain these utterly mundane symptoms. Indeed that there is no reasonable justification for doing so.
Otherwise I would want a Dr who understood that even if some creations of psychology were recommended to them as explanations for their patients ailments by their professional mentors or peers it’s is their own absolute obligation to hold in mind that such projections can be distracting even deadly and that it is their professional and personal duty to remind themselves very regularly that as humans it is easy to become carried away with a belief.
I would want a Dr understand that while they train to read the text and signs and scans and tests, we patients train to read our own bodies and we who are chronically ill train all the more regularly. So while our language may be rudimentary and our priorities statistically out of order, we know and understand enough. We get the basics and we have all been sharing them so we are on average the authority most worth listening to when the subject under discussion is our own bodies.
I would expect this as a minimum standard of good conduct for any Dr with respect for their patients autonomy and concern for their patients welfare.
What I noticed and didn’t appreciate here with this actual document is the angle of approach and along with most of the content.
I don’t think you can cheat this stacked system. A Dr sees their patient having the authority to manage their own bodies, or they don’t.
If there is a temptation to exaggerate the current state of knowledge in favour of your flavour, examine this. If there is a temptation to prop up one’s position on top of the denigration of others (patients with depression or rheumatoid arthritis, pervasive refusal, probably more, I stopped reading) reconsider this.
This no new start. No new paradigm. This is an attempt to turn it around. To point the sharp end of the stick in someone else’s direction. An appeal to authority “It wasn’t me, it was him sir!”
(He doesn’t want to get better!)
What I don’t want from a Dr is speculation presenting itself as something else. Speculate away. Why not? Some of the best ideas come forth out of the confusion. Don’t call it known or settled. But also don’t wriggle and squeeze your way out of a tight spot with noncommittal comments knitting together your supposed knowledge. We all know very well where this leads.
I feel like the author read lots of different resources and mushed them together with heavy emphasis on potential co-morbid conditions that were personally relevant to themselves or perhaps someone else they knew. I really can’t see why they promoted the supposed connections of some and didn’t mention others at all if this was based on a factual analysis.
Also “Chinese women” If this patient was in china then they probably wouldn’t have mentioned her being Chinese. I really hope they meant that she was Chinese first generation to settle wherever this is meant to be. But I am not confident since they elsewhere used the term “Caucasian”.
Edit: I am trying to edit this in my phone and I can see two centimetres of screen at at time so it may be a while.
While we are on the subject document referred to above doesn’t seem to of been put through the necessary rounds of editing to me, I don’t really have to put myself through this but if I were writing an educational manual on a laptop I’d do better.
What would like to see being emphasised as an expectation of Drs right now with our current state of knowledge and before any money is spent or decisions made about avenues of investigation, is as follows;
I would want a Dr able to make the straight forward assessment that the symptoms of ME, coming as they so often do post infectiously, are in all reasonable likelihood of exactly the mundane biological origin that they appear to be.
Commonly experienced symptoms of infection that last an uncommonly long time. For some reason or other.
I would want this Dr to understand that as reason for the underlying cause of M.E biological processes are perfectly sufficient an explanation.
That there is no need for this dr to imagine up some psychological creations to explain these utterly mundane symptoms. Indeed that there is no reasonable justification for doing so.
Otherwise I would want a Dr who understood that even if some creations of psychology were recommended to them as explanations for their patients ailments by their professional mentors or peers it’s is their own absolute obligation to hold in mind that such projections can be distracting even deadly and that it is their professional and personal duty to remind themselves very regularly that as humans it is easy to become carried away with a belief.
I would want a Dr understand that while they train to read the text and signs and scans and tests, we patients train to read our own bodies and we who are chronically ill train all the more regularly. So while our language may be rudimentary and our priorities statistically out of order, we know and understand enough. We get the basics and we have all been sharing them so we are on average the authority most worth listening to when the subject under discussion is our own bodies.
I would expect this as a minimum standard of good conduct for any Dr with respect for their patients autonomy and concern for their patients welfare.
What I noticed and didn’t appreciate here with this actual document is the angle of approach and along with most of the content.
I don’t think you can cheat this stacked system. A Dr sees their patient having the authority to manage their own bodies, or they don’t.
If there is a temptation to exaggerate the current state of knowledge in favour of your flavour, examine this. If there is a temptation to prop up one’s position on top of the denigration of others (patients with depression or rheumatoid arthritis, pervasive refusal, probably more, I stopped reading) reconsider this.
This no new start. No new paradigm. This is an attempt to turn it around. To point the sharp end of the stick in someone else’s direction. An appeal to authority “It wasn’t me, it was him sir!”
(He doesn’t want to get better!)
What I don’t want from a Dr is speculation presenting itself as something else. Speculate away. Why not? Some of the best ideas come forth out of the confusion. Don’t call it known or settled. But also don’t wriggle and squeeze your way out of a tight spot with noncommittal comments knitting together your supposed knowledge. We all know very well where this leads.
I feel like the author read lots of different resources and mushed them together with heavy emphasis on potential co-morbid conditions that were personally relevant to themselves or perhaps someone else they knew. I really can’t see why they promoted the supposed connections of some and didn’t mention others at all if this was based on a factual analysis.
Also “Chinese women” If this patient was in china then they probably wouldn’t have mentioned her being Chinese. I really hope they meant that she was Chinese first generation to settle wherever this is meant to be. But I am not confident since they elsewhere used the term “Caucasian”.
Edit: I am trying to edit this in my phone and I can see two centimetres of screen at at time so it may be a while.
While we are on the subject document referred to above doesn’t seem to of been put through the necessary rounds of editing to me, I don’t really have to put myself through this but if I were writing an educational manual on a laptop I’d do better.
Last edited:
